Its good to know the background but once a regulation is made it has to be followed regardless of the reasoning behind it. I mean if a policeman catches me on crossing a red light, I cant argue that I should not be punished on the basis that I didn't bang into any other car, as collision avoidance was the main reason of traffic lights at a crossing.
What if the car has a technical problem?
There are shortcomings because regulations are made by humans and one cannot rule out human factors/limitaions. But to challenge a regulation one has to submit evidence against it to the concerned committee so that a revision is issued. Until the new regulation is issued the previous one remains valid in the court of law.
Not all situations are covered by regulation.
Legal Implications + Corrupt System = Nightmare
I agree
During normal operations I used to (were possible) decelerate with reversers only. After a while you get a fairly accurate idea what lenght you need as function of touch down ground speed. This method makes you independent of brake system problems and breaking action. The only problem is the reliability of the reversers as function of system reliability and the combination of braking action/ crosswind.
It puts the advisory data for slippery runways in another context. These data are subject to fierce discussions at all levels. Directional control problems as a consequence of uneven braking being one of them.
Basicaly you can always land on the runway to took off from if it is dry. Max brake energy may be a limitation.
If it is not dry you better look carefully at groundspeed on touchdown and slope when you choose your RWY. This becomes more important on slippery runways. Those who live in the northern part of our globe know all about this.